+menu-


  • Category Archives PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS?
  • SMP Update Concerns to Commissioners

    Oct 13, 2017 You, the elected Commissioners are now, at this late date, concerned about the Public Participation Strategy for the 2017 Clallam County SMP Update.

    You are planning open meetings, asking for public comments, and yes, you are planning the date for a public forum.

    ————————————————————————

    Just noting, 2010: The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    ———————————————————————-

    Part one: Oct 13, 2017 , The history of us, the collective 3000 private shoreline property vested stakeholders? What happened to us between Dec 5, 2009 and Jan 26, 2011?

    Dec 5, 2009. the FIRST  public comment on the SMP Update was submitted and posted.

    Jan 26, 2011  The  SMP  Public participation strategy? The first, by invitation only SMP Update meeting was held  by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid, facilitators Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting. Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    What you, the elected, don’t know, have been denied access to by bureaucrats,  about SMP Update  600 plus public comments can hurt all Clallam County citizens.

    ——————————————————————————-

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

    THEREFORE be it resolved that the Clallam County Democratic Central Committee appoint a subcommittee of interested members to monitor the progress of the Shoreline Management Plan review, to suggest to the Central Committee communications to the county of the concerns or interests of Democrats in the elements of the plans and any proposed amendments, and to issue quarterly reports on the review process to the Central Committee.

    ·         December 5, 2009

    ————————————————————————-

    Bureaucrats created the final Clallam County Shoreline 2017 SMP Draft Update.

    Oct 13, 2017 I am just one concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    However, what happens to one of us, on the Clallam County Shoreline Update (SMP) collectively happens to all 3000 of us.

    The SMP ball is now in your court. and just asking?  have you, the elected collectively, or as  an individual elected official, taken the time (due diligence) to visit and read the SMP public court of opinion,600 plus comments on the Clallam County WA SMP Update?

    What happened to the online 600 plus SMP Update Public Comments? You, the elected, are the now, the ultimate decision maker. Have the SMP Public comments of private property owners been taken into consideration by you as a Clallam County Commissioners in the final stages of SMP Update?

     —————————————————————–

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    Jan 26, 2011, I was a concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property.

    I was one of  thirty (30) selected individuals, to be invited to attend the first Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan Update  (SMP) meeting.

    The meeting was presented by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid facilitators , Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    In spite of the fact that it was a  private public  meeting, by invitation only, sixty (60) concerned citizens showed up and packed the room.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting.

    Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    When I complained about it at a commissioners public meeting, after the meeting Commissioner Chapman insulted me, and said if I didn’t like the way things were going I should sign up for the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    I did, I was appointed by DCD Miller.

    Cathy Lear said I must read everything. I did and that was when I started making Public SMP Update Comments.

    —————————————————–

    By May 5, 2011,

    I was an angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and a member of the appointed Citizens Advisory Committee

    050511 – PHewett – G

      #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory Committee, are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    —————————————————————————-

    By July 07, 2012, I  was a very frustrated, angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and  a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee

    July 7, 2012 I was so concerned about the SMP Update I compiled the

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information?

    Unfortunately the links 2009-2012 SMP public comments  are not  linked to the SMP Update

    Not one of Clallam County elected representative from 2011 is still in office.

    Please note, there is only one county employee, Steve Gray, still employed by Clallam County that is still rewriting and revising the SMP Update. Unless? County employee Cathy Lear is representing someone?

    And, Steve is still being directed  by the ESA Adolfson  paid consultant, facilitator  Margret Clancy.

    Just saying, Margaret Clancy is not legally responsible for whatever content she and Steve decide to put into the SMP Update.

    Just asking? Have Clallam County elected representatives sought or received any legal counsel?

    Am I concerned? YOU BET…

    ARE YOU CONCERNED? Read the 2009-2012 comments, go find and read the 600 plus SMP public comments,. You, the elected, not bureaucrats, are responsible for the fate of Clallam County, you are the ultimate and final SMP Update decision makers.

    SHOULD YOU, THE ELECTED BE CONCERNED?  You decide.

    A concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Trustee George C.Rains Sr. Estate

    —————————————————————

    July 07, 2012 COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: undisclosed concerned citizens and elected officials

    Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 10:02 AM

    THE SHORT FORM IS AN EMAIL

    CLICK ON THE TOP LINK TO READ THE FULL 6300 WORD DOCUMENT

    Subject: COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

     

    • TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    • If you want to read the  full SMP comment? Go to the Clallam County SMP website. Click on Public comments. Identify the comment by using the name and the date (no comment #  is displayed).
    • I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information? If the online Public Comments will be compiled? Read by the decision makers? And if the comments of private property owners will be taken into considereration by the Planning Dept. and the Clallam County Commissioners in the final SMP Update? Public Forums are being scheduled and the private property owners of Clallam County need to be advised.
    • Pearl Rains Hewett concerned member of the DOE SMP Advisory Committee
    • 050511 – PHewett – G
    • #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory Committee, are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.
    •  

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2009-2012

    July:

    ·         070212 – RKonopaski – G

    ·         #284 clarifying the setbacks on marine shorelines?

    June:

    ·         062312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #283 excessive 175-150 + 10 foot setbacks

    ·         061712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #282 DOE private meeting

    ·         061412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #281 150′ wetland setbacks Futurewise and Grays Harbor

    ·         061412 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #280 WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF CLALLAM COUNTY?

    ·         061112 – PHewett – G

    ·         # 279 See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987). precautionary setbacks

    ·         060912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #278 25  No setback increases See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987).

    ·         060712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #277 Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims. 65% taking violates law

    ·         060312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #276 No taking of private property for public access

    May:

    ·         053012 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #275 RE-DESIGNATE TO FRESHWATER RURAL

    ·         052912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #274 fight back COORDINATION PROCESS 43 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1712

    ·         052412 – RCahill – SMPdraft

    ·         #273 the spirit and intent of the Department of Ecology’s Shore land’s and Environmental Assistance, publication number 09-06-029, shall and should, be changed to may.

    ·         052212 – JBlazer – SED

    ·         #272 The problem… my parcel and the 2 parcels to the south would be hard pressed to build residences that take advantage of the marine view using the 175 ft setback in the proposed designation of Freshwater Conservancy.

    ·         052112 – MBlack – SMPdraft

    ·         #271 The overall concern I have is that you are in fact taking future uses away from private land holders without clearly acknowledging doing so.

    ·         051712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #270 problem SELLING AND BUYING DOE SMP NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    ·         051612 – PHewett – PPS

    ·         #269 SMP Public Forum participation

    ·         051512 – ASoule – SMPdraft

    ·         #268 SMP references to sea level rise

    ·         051212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #267 FORKS SMP PUBLIC FORUM problems  MAY 10, 2012

    ·         051212 – KNorman – SED

    ·         #266 I hope that you will reconsider the classification of these lots based on this information as to do otherwise would be a severe hardship on the owners of the lots and would constitute a “taking” of the land.

    ·         051112 – FutureWise-PPS – SMPdraft

    ·         #265 Clallam County v. Futurewise 7 years + lawsuit Carlsborg. The current SMP updates are an opportunity to significantly improve protection for the straits and the county’s other shorelines.

    ·         050812 – EBowen – G20

    ·         #264  S. Gray to Ed Bowen long overdue Final Draft WRIA 20 Preliminary SMP Elements Report

    ·         050812 – WFlint – SED

    ·         #263  redesignateThe Lower Lyre River should be designated as Freshwater Residential (FRSD), and not Freshwater Conservancy (FC) as it is now proposed.

    ·         050812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #262 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AND THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW DOE has consistently ignored questions asked on SMP comments, posted on the Clallam County SMP Update website, and at SMP Advisory meetings. I am requesting answers to the following questions to comply with the core principles of Due Process and the DOE SMP taking of private property in Clallam County.

    ·         050712 – USFWS – SMPdraft

    ·         #261  The Service strongly supports maintaining the feeder bluffs in their natural functioning condition.

    ·         050612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #260 If it is not recorded with the Clallam County Auditor’s Office it is not on the Property Title. What should be recorded with the Auditor’ s office for Public Record?

    ·         050512 – ESpees – G

    ·         #259 The premise of the SMA/SMP Undate ‘that there is and environmental crisis’ that requires a draconian governmental intervention is bogus.

    ·         050412 – LMuench – G

    ·         #258 I think you would best be served by showing shrubs as well as trees. Since the graphics are done, what about a red arrow pointing to the trees saying “may be limbed for views.” This is a major issue with shoreline land owners.

    ·         050412 – ESpees – G

    ·         #257 The negative ECONOMIC IMPACT of the DoE imposed SMA/SMP Update for 2012 will be staggering!!!

    ·         050412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #256 Clallam County DOE SMP update, written text, uses our safety and protection as an excuse to take, restrict and control the use/development of our private property.

    ·         050312 – JBettcher – G

    ·         #255 I appreciate the public benefit of a healthy ecosystem but oppose the taking of private property by prohibiting private landowners from applying the best engineering practices to resist natural whims.

    ·         050212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #254 REAL ESTATE LOW MARKET VALUE OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    April:

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #253 Increased Ins.FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #252 House Bill 2671  If a county appeals the (DOE) Department of Ecology’s final action on their local shoreline master program and  the appeal is given to the Growth Management Hearings Board?

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #251 No. 87053-5 lawsuit against GMA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    ·         042612 – PHewett -G

    ·         #250 CLALLAM COUNTY- County NEGLECT OF WIRA 20 SMP PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         042112 – Spees – G

    ·         #249 this insane outrageous governmental over reach under the thinly veiled cover of saving the environment. The problem now is not the environment.

    ·         042112 – PHewett – G

    ·         #248 PARTIAL DISCLOSURE OF negative SMP IMPACT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         041812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #247 The statistics introduced 474 at the last SMP Advisory meeting, on how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings will become non-conforming by the SMP Draft marine 175′, 150′ plus 10′ setbacks, has not been posted on the SMP web site.

    ·         041712 – Port of PA – G

    ·         #246 Excessive buffers Table 4.1 the proposed draft buffer in row “a” should be modified from 100’ to 50’

    March:

    ·         032912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #245 THE MOST UNSCIENTIFIC PARTS OF THE DOE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP ARE, that even with DOE’S 1616 employees and a billion dollar budget.DOE doesn’t have a single analyst capable of compiling and reporting the most important documented/published scientific statistics provided by The Clallam County Inventory and Characteristic reports.

    ·         032612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #244 ESA Adolfson’s consultant’s failure to comply with WA State Law RCW 90.58.100 Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion.

    ·         032512 – PHewett – G20

    ·         #243 WIRA 20 Sol Duc River Reach 80 needs to be re-designated on proposed draft to 3.1.1.4 Freshwater Conservancy (FC)

    ·         032312 – RCrittenden – SMPdraft

    ·         #242 Thus, all regulation is evil by its nature and it is repressive. The best regulations are those that are the least that is necessary to accomplish their intended legitimate purpose. And “legitimate” is not to be broadly construed.

    ·         032212 – PHewett/RCrittenden – G

    ·         #241 Dr. Robert N. Crittenden SMP critical comments, testimony, tables and reviews

    ·         032112 – OEC – SMPdraft

    ·         #240  Change “should” to “shall” ,,,,culverts, and bridges shall be conducted using best practices….

    ·         031712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #239 Who controls PATENT LAND GRANTS ISSUED PRIOR TO STATEHOOD

    ·         031412 – MBarry – G

    ·         #238 These shorelines are critical for wildlife and natural ecological functions. I favor large setbacks. I favor development restrictions

    ·         030912 – PHewett – G/NNL

    ·         #237 Mitigation is for the rich Building Permit 2012-00014 issued to owners, David and Maria Tebow, Battle Creek MI. Two story 4 bedroom house 4770 sq feet, garage 927 sq feet, covered deck 173 sq feet with 19 plumbing drains (Number of Bathrooms?) Setbacks 60/25/25 Project value $486,781.18. the written guarantee bythe Clallam County DCD of no net loss to ecological functions (documented on building permit)

    ·         030512 – ESpees – SMPdraft

    ·         #236 There is no way that these voluminous shoreline land use policies can be understood. It takes no imagination to understand that this process is not ‘due process’ in the taking of beneficial use of our Private Property

    ·         030412 – PHewett – SMPdraft

    ·         #235 DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages) has gone missing, creating law by rule

    ·         030312 – KAhlburg – SMPdraft

    ·         #234 The last sentence runs directly counter to this assurance and needs to be modified or deleted. It otherwise will constitute yet another unfunded mandate burdening the County and “other entities” (which ones?).

    ·         030212 – PHewett – NNL/SMPdraft

    ·         #233 Lake Sutherland is a perfect example of Ecology’s NO NET LOSS.

    ·         With a 35 foot setback since 1976 there is no net loss of ecological function in Lake Sutherland.

    ·         030112 – MarineResourcesCouncil – SMPdraft

    ·         #232 It may also be possible that under certain development conditions, if done to minimize impervious surface and maximize water infiltration, could enhance the function of the buffer and perhaps allow for a narrower buffer.

    February:

    ·         022812 – FutureWise – SMPdraft

    ·         #231 The first half establishes the expected character of shoreline buffers, and is well stated. But the second half goes on to state that only 80% of the buffer vegetation is protected, and that 20% can be used for lawns and other use areas.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #230 NO NET LOSS MENTIONED In law RCW 36.70A.480 but has never been defined (4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areas located within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by department of ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #229 The policies, goals, and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW and applicable guidelines shall be the sole basis for determining compliance of a shoreline master program

    ·         022712 – WDOE- SMP Statue

    ·         #228 Gordon White letter dated Feb. 27,2012 page 4, disclaimer of creating enforceable state LAW by rule on Page 88 of the WA State Public Trust Doctrine.

    ·         022412 – QuileuteNation – SMPdraft

    ·         #227 TRIBAL comment

    January:

    ·         010312 – LowerElwhaKlalllamTribe – SED

    ·         #226 TRIBAL comment

     

     

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

    SMP Comments 2011:

    December:

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #225 PROBLE  WETLANDS NOT ON SMP MAPS Attachments: Lowell OREGON Local Wetland Inventory Report DRAFT.docx

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #224 Perkins and Coie  Your Request on Tacoma SMP Attachments: 12-13-10 letter to Gary Brackett.pdf; SMA and Public Access.pdf legal paper against SMP taking

    ·         120711 –OlympicEnvironmentalCouncil (OEC) – G

    ·         #223 Sea level  rise and climate change

    ·         120611 – WDOE- ICR20

    ·         #222  Draft WRIA 20 Inventory and Characterization

    November:

    ·         113011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #221 In the WRIA Process and the SMA/SMP Update Process the concept of State regulation of land use based on Feeder Bluffs and Littoral Drift Cells is a False Construct.

    ·         112511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #220 The DoE’s current cram-down of NNL and increased set-backs based on precautionary principle and ‘new understandings of science’ (non-science/non-sense/pseudo-science) should be rejected.

    ·         112411 – ESpees – G

    ·         #219 Impact on all stakeholders It’s content is extremely pertinent to the work we are doing in Clallam County’s SMA/SMP Update.

    ·         111611 – MPfaff-Pierce – SED

    ·         #218 Specifically, I am requesting that you reclassify the entire Whiskey Creek Beach Resort area as Modified Lowland. Right now you are proposing that a short area west of the creek be designated as Modified Lowland and the rest as High Bank.

    ·         111111 – JPetersen – SED

    ·         #217 Many activities would be prohibited without really looking at the specifics.

    ·         111011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #216 This is on the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)”Finally, SMP’S, unlike other comprehensive plans, are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program. As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE. in this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.”

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #215 SMP FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW not the WAC’S

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #214 Court: Washington Supreme Court Docket: 84675-8 Opinion Date: August 18, 2011 Judge: Johnson Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Applicable Law and Analysis. In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court explained that even though there is significant local government involvement in the creation of SMPs, the process is done in the shadow of the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) control.

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #213 the Shoreline Management Act dictates that the Department of Ecology retains control over the final contents and approval of SMPs. Therefore, SMP regulations are the product of state action and are not subject to RCW 82.02.020.”

    ·         110611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #212 EXCLUDED SMP DOE WAC’S DO NOT BECOME LAW

    ·         110511 – ESpees – NNL

    ·         #211 In keeping with regard to no net loss was unclear and without any foundation.

    ·         110511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #210 The law has recently been perverted by State Agencies to usurp private property rights, an uncompensated State taking by regulation.

    ·         110511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #209 There is no WA State law requiring any taking of private property for public access on the Clallam County SMP Update.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #208 WHO CAN STOP DOE WAC’S FROM BECOMING STATE LAWS?

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #207 Victory for PLF Whatcom County’s shoreline management rules conflict with state law, which mandates that counties “shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion.” RCW 90.58.100.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #206 BY Law there is NO mention of the words “imminent or danger or soft armoring” IF THIS WORDING IS USED ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT CONTRADICTS WA STATE LAW RCW 90.58.100 Protection of single family residences IT WILL BECOME CLALLAM COUNTY LAW.

    ·         110311 – WDFW – ICR

    ·         #205 A useful tool may be to describe, in general, the range of possible existing conditions within any portion of the shoreline.

    ·

    October:

    ·         103111 – WDOE – ICR

    ·         #204  Not a copy format

    ·         103111 – JLarson – ICR

    ·         #203 I made at last SMP-WG meeting be incorporated into record

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         # 202 Who’s toes will you be stepping on by using this? Will you be able to notify the private property owners that are inadvertently compromised? Are there any single family residences, in any areas, where you have not specifically provided comment on protection by Law?

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #201 Is this another WAC overstepping it’s authority and the LAW?

    ·         101911 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #200 The concept of no net loss in this State originated with earlier efforts to protect wetlands. In 1989, Governor Booth Gardner signed an Executive Order establishing a statewide goal regarding wetlands protection.

    ·         101811 – JEstes – G

    ·         #199 There are 3,289 shoreline property owners in Clallam County about to be subject to further regulation and restriction on the use of their land.

    ·         101711 – PHewett – G

    ·          #198 Unconstitutional Conditions of  WAC 173-26-191 Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property.

    ·         101711 – WSP – ICR20

    ·         #197 Any additional comments on the two Clallam County SMP Inventory and Characterizations Reports are due by October 31, 2011

    ·         101111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #196 WAC’S ARE NOT LAW’S? Guidelines Are Not Law’s? Rules Are Not Law’s?

    ·         100811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #195 WAC 365-195-905 Criteria for determining which information is the best available science

    ·         100611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #194 REMOTE VIEWING AND SPACIAL DATA I did not find a State- of- the art- GSI and remote sensing facility for WA State?

    No b comment for #193?

    ·         100411 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #192 Please bring the SMP Public Comments up to date.

    ·         100311 – JTatom – G

    ·         #191 As a property owner in Clallam County, I cannot imagine that you, as servants of the county, would even consider placing additional restrictions on residents who live near shorelines (marine, rivers, streams and lakes). Already we find ourselves so restricted that we are unable to use large portions

    ·         of our “privately” owned property.

    ·         100111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #190 Is it the intent, of two Elected County Commissioners, that total control of all private property in Clallam County, be given to the Federal Government and the WA State DOE, one way or the other?

    September:

    ·         092611 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #189 Taking of Private Property for Public Access I insist that ESA Adolfson give us the total land acreage of private property that is affected by the SMP Update subject to NO NET LOSS and taking for Public Access.

    ·         092511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #188 private property owners pay for Noxious Weed Control ‐ LMD#2 Lake Sutherland

    There is no #187  public comment?

    ·         092211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #186 SHORELINE RESIDENTS SWAMPED BY REGULATIONS

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #185 I tried to stress the fact that it is not lack of public land, it is the lack of public access to that publically owned land,that is the problem.

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #184 CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTIC REPORT Based on the “Best Available Science?”

    ·         092211 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #183 Tribal comment

    ·         091311 – LowerElwhaKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #182 Tribal comment

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #181 CLALLAM COUNTY SECTION 35.01.150 Real property assessments. PROTECTION FOR LOSS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VALUE?  The restrictions imposed by the Shoreline Master Program shall be considered by the County Assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #180 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011 every public comment and question asked.

    ·         090411 – JLewis – CR/ICR

    ·         #179 Public access across our property through our wetlands and over our berm to our private beach would be of great concern to us. Here are some questions and concerns we’d like addressed and you consider amending the provisions for providing public shoreline access:

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #178 The Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and

    ·         Feeder Bluffs Construct are so much BS/Smoke and Mirrors.

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #177 The Shoreline Master Program Update is rigged. NNL & larger setbacks do not represent the ‘will of the people’. It does not protect the rights of the Citizens.

    ·         090211 – ESpees – G

    ·         #176 I gave my opinion about ‘locking up’ shorelines property based on salmon and endangered species as a pretext

    August:

    ·         083111 – WDNR – ICR

    ·         #175 THREAT? Incidentally, many of the docks and other development may

    ·         encroach onto State owned aquatic lands without proper DNR authorization.

    ·         083111 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #174 There is obviously no “ground truthing” of the information in this report.

    ·         083111 – JLWisecup – G

    ·         #173 It lists it as a slide area although for the past 32 years we have had no indication of any land movement or building shift.

    ·         083111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #172 It is more loony insanity being foisted on the Citizens of the State of Washington by a Government and their agents that are out of control.

    ·         083111 – ESpees -G

    ·         171 The SMA/SMP and the WRIA processes are a means of locking up, transferring ownership to the State, and regulating the use of these areas/preventing private economic and other beneficial use of these prime areas.

    ·         082811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #170 SILT DAMAGE FROM ELWHA TO DUNGENESS SPIT?

    ·         082511 – ElwhaMorseMgmtTeam – ICRMaps

    ·         #169  Chris Byrnes commented on the yellow dots off shore (indicating “no appreciable drift”), argued that if it was so small, there wouldn’t be drifting anyway.

    ·         082511 – CoastalWatershedInstitute – ICR

    ·         #168 The characterization needs to be revised to include existing CLALLAM specific information and appropriate relevant recommendations that are in this existing information.

    ·         082511 – DAbbott – G

    ·         #167 I would like to see every effort made to ensure the constitutional rights of private property ownership made by those who have influence in our lawmaking process. These rights have been encroached upon over the years and there is a renewed concern today by many private citizens.

    ·         082411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #166 WA State SMP is requiring Public access on private property at the expense of the property owner.

    There is no comment#164

    There is no comment #163

    ·         081011 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #162 I urge you to look at the reach/s or resource issues within all reaches for accuracy, omissions, and errors.

    ·         There is no comment #161

    ·

    ·         081011 – WSP – ICR

    ·         #160 not able to copy

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #159

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #158

    ·          

    ·         080511 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #157 A huge treat to Private Property owners.Wetlands are not included on SMP Update maps showing the areas that are a threat and risk of development.

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #156

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #155

    ·

    ·         080111 – FutureWise – ICR

    ·         #154 The Sierra Club

    July:

    ·         072611 – WASeaGrant – ICR

    ·         #153 Coastal Hazards Specialist

    There is not comment #152

    ·         072211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #151 Fact or Fiction, It is illegal to collect water in a rain barrel?

    ·         The State owns all rainwater?

    ·         072011 – CCPlCom – ICR

    ·         #150 The July Forum attendance was low and those that attended appeared to be struggling with the information presented and the questions to ask.

    There is no comment #149

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #148 Marine and Fresh water reach’s impaired by water temperature for fish recovery

    ·         072011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #147 Freshwater reaches impaired by water temperature (32) Marine reaches impaired by water temperature (6) Contaminated Marine Reaches (5)

    ·         Contaminated Freshwater Reaches (2) plus several

    ·         072011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #146 What the hell does NNL (No Net Loss of ecological function) mean? What is the plan for the amount of setbacks? What is the basis of this vague indefinable policy?

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR20

    ·         #145 On page 5-14 HOKO_RV_05 is not listed. Shore line length 3.8 miles and Reach area 246.40 acres 100% timber

    ·         071711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #144 TOP TEN PUBLIC SMP UPDATE CONCERNS

    ·         071711 – ESpees – G

    ·         #143 Tribes not affected by Shoreline Mgmt. Plan Updates

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #142 the DoE/EPA attempt to strip the Citizens of their private property rights.

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #141 It uses Drift Cells and Littoral Drift as excuses to take away private use and protections of private property. This has to do with ‘feeder bluffs’

    ·         071211 – TSimpson – ICR

    ·         #140 Page 6-12 Needs Correction :Lines 19-22

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #139 COLD ENOUGH? For Salmon Recovery?

    ·         Based on their own reports and data, the amount of tree canopy, logging, development and public access are NOT factors in the impaired water temperature? Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #138 Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name? We should be given the exact location of every specific contaminated site and the full identity of EVERY contaminator.

    ·         071111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #137 Conspicuously absent from the report of the first meeting is an accounting of the economical impact.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #136 If more public access is needed, it is not the responsibility of Private Property Owner’s to provide it.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #135 The Clallam County SMP update requires private property owners to give public access to their privately owned marine shorelines, prior to permitting development.

    ·

    ·         No comment # 134

    ·         No comment #133

    ·         No Comment #132

     

     

    .

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

     

    SMP Comments 2011 cont.

    June:

    ·         062811 – JLMcClanahan – G20

    ·          #131 She was very concerned about any potential regulatory changes that would result in the loss of options for using their two parcels in the future.

    ·         062411 – RTMcAvoy – G20

    ·         #130 they are against any such change for the reasons stated herein.

    ·         062411 – DMansfield – G20

    ·         #129 Adamant about no further restrictions on property

    ·         062411 – PCWidden – G20

    ·         #128 Concerns about changing the current SMP status from Rural to Conservancy.

    No comment #127

    ·         062011 – JEstes – G

    ·         #126  detail on how members of the public and affected property owners are being notified

    No Comment # 125

    ·         060611 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #124 local DOE

    ·         060611 – PortofPA – CR

    ·         #123 LIMIT NOT PROHIBIT

    ·         060411 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #122 The salmonid stocks in Clallam County are not limited by freshwater habitat

    ·         060311 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – CR

    ·         #121 Tribal Comment

    ·         060311 – HBell – CR

    ·         #120 This is not required by the RCW nor the WAC. WAC 173-26-241

    ·         060311 – WSP – CR

    ·         #119 State Park comment

    ·         060311 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #118 Local DOE

    ·         060311 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #117 By Dr. Robert N. Crittenden

    ·         060211 – RCrittenden – CR

    ·         #116 the low abundance of these stocks is also being used, to perpetrate the deception that it is caused by habitat loss.

    ·         060211 – JEstes – CR

    ·         #115 the CR is one of several steps the County will take to consider if any existing “policies or regulations need to change.” There must be demonstrated

    ·         need for any changes and all affected landowners should be invited to consider any changes.

    ·         060211 – SForde – G

    ·         #114 Which one of my individual rights are you protecting with the Shoreline Master Plan and/or any updates to it? The answer: Nonein fact, you are violating them.

    ·         060211 – QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #113 Tribal comment

    ·         060211 – CRogers – CR

    ·         #112 -Page 4 typo error

    ·         060211  –  QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #111 Tribal comment

    ·         060111 – AStevenson – CR

    ·         #110 a marked up PDF of the Consistency Review

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #109 SMP Update – SMP Update Rigged Process

    No comment #108

    ·         060111 – PHewett – G #107

    ·         TOTALITARIAN: by definition(concerned with) arrogating (to the state and the ruling party) all rights and liberty of every choice, including those normally belonging to individuals, etc.

    ·         060111 – MTWalker – G

    ·         #106 The SMP should be rejected in all it’s forms. It erodes our rights and freedoms, does not comply with and is in fact contrary to the Constitution, is poorly written, poorly organized, vague, and its objectives are ambiguous/obscure.

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #105 Tribes Not Affected

    May:

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #104 The SMP erodes our rights and freedoms

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #103 The NNL Policy, larger setbacks and buffers, and new forced public access to private property will further erode our freedoms.

    ·         053111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #102 Green Point, group. 35 were invited and 17 showed up plus Dave Hannah was there to answer questions on bluff stability. Of the 17 only one was aware of SMP or said they had been contacted about forums.

    ·         053111 – PHewett – G / CR

    ·         #101 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    ·         052911 – ESpees – G

    ·         #100 Adopting the NNL Policy and enlargement of current buffers is making bad policy worse.

    ·         052911 – PHewett – G

    ·         #99 SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Many of the problems that were the REASON that the public voted for the original Shore Line Management Act have already been corrected.

    ·         052811 – ESpees – G

    ·         #98 The DoE, an unelected State agency, is making radical policy based on the new State religion of earth worship.

    ·         052811 – RHale – G

    ·         #97 SMP’S are nothing more than a new version of a death panel and a method for which to take property rights of state Registered/ Deeded and “taxed” owners.

    ·         052711 – ESpees – G

    #96 Article 1. Section 1. Of the Washington State Constitution

    Political Power: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

    052711 – PHewett – G

    #95 WA State DOE Budget is A THOUSAND MILLION IS A BILLION written AS $1,034.0 Million (the Doe can’t even write it as a BILLION)

    ·         052611 – MGentry – G

    ·         #94 I reported to Steve and Sheila only one of the group of 20 we met with had received notices like this. Can you determine why?

    No comment #93

    ·         052111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #92 Directing and identifying how our Clallam County Officials can withhold permits to private property owner’s because the State can’t legally or constitutionally regulate our private property at a state level.

    No comment #91

    ·         051811 – JPetersen – CR

    ·         #90 One of the items that should be addressed in the new shoreline program is the relative inaccuracy of the Critical Areas maps in regards to Meander Hazard Zones.

    ·         051811 – NOTAC – CR

    ·         #89 MANY comments on the Consistency Review

    No comment #88

    No comment #87

    No comment #86

    No comment #85

    No comment #84

    No comment #83

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #82 WA The Supreme Court has granted review in several additional cases against the SMP this month.Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning, et al. v. Whatcom County, et al., No. 84675-8.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #81 United States Supreme Court RULES An environmental restriction on property development that serves no environmental purpose is unjustifiable.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #80 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    No comment #79

    No comment #78

    ·         051011 – TSummer – G

    ·         #77 No privacy on private beach I have met some extremely rude people who confront me and won’t leave my backyard because they believe the beach SHOULD BE public.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #76 Clallam County SMP has/will taken the value of private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones and shorelines and is legally controlling and regulating the removal of all vegetation on all private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #75 TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS Statistics taken from Clallam County future land use map 79.2 % of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND 17.1% or less of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY 3.7% other

    No comment #74

    No comment #73

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #72 LAKE SUTHERLAND RCW 90.24.010 Petition to regulate flow

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #71 Oregon Voters May Require Compensation for Damage to Land Value Due to Regulations

    ·         050511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #70 We, as a committee are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    ·

    April:

    ·         042611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #69 Since, all of the SMP public comments are being held private?

    I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public

    comments PUBLIC?

    ·         042311 – MBlack – G

    ·         #68 This is crazy-making and counterproductive. Please pick one that can be defined.

    ·         042011 – KAhlburg – G

    ·         #67 Public comments

    ·         041811 – QuileuteNation – G

    ·         #66 Tribal Comment

    ·         041411 – RColby – G

    No comment #65

    No comment #64

    No comment #63

    ·         #62 We are still suffering under the Good Ole Boys mentality out here because in Clallam bay one property owner is using his lands for staging a scrap metal yard right next to Charlie creek.

    ·         041411 – TSimpson – G

    ·         #61  To mandate setbacks is arbitrary. Each site is different.

    ·         041211 – BBrennan – G

    ·         #60  We are in the process of evaluating the existing well and have had utilities reconnected to the property. Over the next few years we hope to see these projects come to fruition, but are concerned that shoreline setback changes could impede our progress.

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #59 hand written

    ·         041111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #58 hand written

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #57 Hand written

    ·         041111 – RMorris – G

    ·         #56 same as #57 hand written

    ·         041111 – NMessmer – G

    ·         #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·         041011 – RMorris – G

    ·         #54 I would really like to see a ban on the use of yard-related herbicides and pesticides within buffer zones near aquatic areas.

    No comment #53

    No comment #52

    ·         04 –11- RMorris – G

    ·         #51 #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·

    March:

    ·         031511- PHewett – G

    ·         #50  Summary  was not representative of the meeting I attended on Jan. 26, 2011. There was no mention of Lake Sutherland and the outpour of concern by the private property owners.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #49 My first look at the report is that is looks good.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #48 Is the Clallam County MRC research and data bases being used in this work?

    No comment #47

    ·         031411 – MGentry – G

    ·         #46 I would be really interested in knowing what portion of the population actually has even an elementary understanding of what’s going on with this planning process, the decisions being made and how those will affect the common citizen.

    ·         031111- JWare – G

    ·         #45 Thank you for providing the opportunity to participate and learn more about the Clallam County Shoreline Master Plan.

    No comment #44

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #43 Indian Tribes Role in Local Watershed Planning (ESHB 2514)

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #42 INVITATION TO ALL PERSONS RCW 90.58.130

    No comment #41

    February:

    ·         021711 – MLangley – G

    ·         #40 PRO SMP but Too often shoreline owners bear the burden of inconsiderate visitors.

    ·         021511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #39  My son listened to me complain for days about the SMP and illegal trespass by DFW on our land, then he gave me some invaluable advise. If you have a complaint? CLIMB THE LADDER!

    ·         020211 – RBrown – G

    ·         #38 Sorry I couldn’t make it to the latest SMP focus group

    January:

    ·         012611 – MBoutelle – G

    ·         #36 hand written erosion problem

    No comment #35

    No comment #34

    No comment #33

    No comment #32

    ·         012111 – CAbrass – G

    ·         #31 One of our concerns is the lack of guidelines and drainage requirements for new housing development above the level of waterfront property.

    ·         011811 – DJones – G

    ·         #30 I received a phone call today reporting that a man is going around Lake Sutherland taking photos of the docks. His response was that it is for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)Update.

    2010:

    The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    No comment #29

    No comment #28

    No comment #27

    No comment #26

    ·         110810 – WDNR – G

    ·         #25 Please include myself and Hugo Flores as contacts for the WA DNR and

    ·         include us in any mailings regarding your future planning efforts.

    No comment #24

    ·         080510 – PSP – G

    ·         #23 PSP

    No comment #22

    No comment #21

    No comment #20

    No comment #19

    No comment #18

    No comment #17

    ·         031010 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #16  SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030910 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #15 We talked about how to include the transient or tourist public in the outreach strategy

     

    No comment #14

    No comment #13

     

    ·         030810 – LMuench – PPS

    ·         #12 SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030410 – QuileuteNation – PPS

    ·         #11 Tribal comment, I am thinking the person who drafted it just

    ·         looked at state requirements and did not go beyond that

    No comment #10

    No comment #9

    No comment #8

    No comment #7

    No comment #6

    No comment #5

    ·         022410 – FutureWise – PPS

    ·         #4 The very nature of this product is about public participation. Some

    ·         description of it is needed, including how it is intended to be used in the SMP.

    No comment #3

    ·         020910 – JMarrs – PPS

    ·         #2 I am pleased with the emphasis I see on making the process open and transparent.

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

    THEREFORE be it resolved that the Clallam County Democratic Central Committee appoint a subcommittee of interested members to monitor the progress of the Shoreline Management Plan review, to suggest to the Central Committee communications to the county of the concerns or interests of Democrats in the elements of the plans and any proposed amendments, and to issue quarterly reports on the review process to the Central Committee.

    ·         December 5, 2009

     REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    To be Continued….

    Behind My Back | SMP Public Comment # 160

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/11/smp-public-comment-160/

    SMP Public Comment # 160 Posted on February 11, 2015 1:01 pm by … … No Clallam County elected representatives attended this meeting. Thirty (30) people …

    ——————————————————————————

    Behind My Back | SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/03/23/smp-and-other-matrix-mumbo-jumbo/

    (OF THE 617 WRITTEN SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE?) … OR ORAL COMMENT INCLUDED IN THE “NEW SMP 160+ MATRIX”? … There is no accountability as to what Clallam County government agency or other …. UNDER AN EXPEDITED RULE- MAKING … full text on behindmyback.org.

    ———————————————————————-

    19 Unresolved SMP Issues AN SMP Public … – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/635_PHewett.pdf

    Jul 4, 2015 – On 19 unresolved SMP issues that went to the Planning … The 19 unresolved SMP issues on July 10, 2012 ….. Of …www.behindmyback.org.

    The bottom line…..

     REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000?

    You the elected are responsible for what happens to all of us.


  • WA DOE Amending the SMA/SMP?

    This is my public comment on the Clallam County SMP Update

    It is a formal written complaint directed to Elected DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn

    The Clallam County SMP Update has been a work in progress for over seven (7) years

    The first Public comment on the SMP Update, was Dec 5, 2009

    The latest update on the Clallam County SMP website is from November 2014

    AND THE STATUS OF CLALLAM COUNTY  SMP  MARCH 3, 2017?

    Clallam County

    Southwest

    Under way

    How bad was the Clallam County WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) SMP Update in 2009? 2010?2011? 2012? 2o13? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    CONTENTIOUS…. Over 600  public comments were submitted.

    The  “LAST” PUBLIC FORUM” was held Jan 14, 2015  in Sequim WA

    The latest update on the Clallam County SMP website is from November 2014

    Only one, non-elected county employee has been involved in the SMP Update from start to finish.

    Who’s running the SMP Update behind our backs behind closed doors

    How much Funding has been granted to Clallam County by the DOE $549,986.00

    Who’s being paid behind our backs behind closed doors to Update the Clallam County Shoreline SMP?

    HAVE THE VESTED SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNING CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY BEEN LEFT OUT OF THE PUBLIC OPEN MEETING PROCESS FOR A  “COOLING OFF PERIOD?”

    WHAT WOULD VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT?

    If you have questions or need assistance, please contact the Ecology shoreline planner in your region or contact Bev Huether at bev.huether@ecy.wa.gov.

     

     

     

     

     

    Behind My Back | SMP Public Comment (159)

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/01/16/3152/

    Jan 16, 2015 – SMP Public Comment (159) Clallam County Planning Commission Public … WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, on the backs of the already BELEAGUERED …. www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/22/2014-femas–warped-data/.

    I did attend the last two public forums

    Jan. 8, 2015 Port Angeles Public Forum

    The presentation was well done and applauded

    Jan 14, 2015 Sequim Public Forum

    Was a mini- presentation

    ———————————————————————

    How bad was the Clallam County WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) SMP Update in 2009? 2010?2011? 2012? 2o13? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    WHAT A MESS ECOLOGY IS AMENDING THE SMP?

    WAC WAC WAC

    WHAT WOULD VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT?

    Elected Director Mary Ellen Winborn, 

    Department of Community Development

    The Draft SMP (November 2014) is now under review by the Clallam County Planning Commission (PC)

    ** Note: The Draft SMP (November 2014) is a work in progress and likely subject to further revision as the local and state SMP process moves forward.

    AFTER OVER SEVEN (7) YEARS OF A WORK IN PROGRESS IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION UNDER DOE PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS.

    ———————————————————————————

    WHAT A MESS ECOLOGY IS AMENDING THE SMP?

    March 1, 2017 WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) is proposing rule amendments related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)  RCW 90.58, specifically:

    • Chapter 173-18 WAC – Shoreline Management Act –Streams and Rivers Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-20 WAC – Shoreline Management Act–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-22 WAC – Adoption of Designations of Shorelands and Wetlands Associated with Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-26 WAC- State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master Program Guidelines
    • Chapter 173-27 WAC – Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures

     ——————————————

    SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

    Behind My Back | Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/02/ecologys-back-amended-plus-smp-wacs/SEPTEMBER 2, 2015 (Sep 2, 2015) – Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S This is an area of statewide concern. Ecology is “BEGINNING” rulemaking “TO AMEND …
    MARCH 1, 2015
    ECOLOGY IS BACK  WITH MORE “Amended Plus”
    —————————————————————-

    Shoreline Management | Introduction the the SMA | Washington State …www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st_guide/intro.html

    Washington’s Shoreline Management Act was passed by the State Legislature … The Act applies to all 39 counties and more than 200 towns and cities that have …

    ————————————————————————————

    Shoreline Master Program Updates

    Cities and counties are required to update their shoreline master programs to be consistent with the guidelines according to the schedule in RCW 90.58.080, with periodic reviews thereafter. For the complete schedules, see DOE’s Shoreline Master Program Update Schedule page. For the status of individual jurisdictions, see Status of Local Shoreline Master Plans: Comprehensive Updates.

    How bad was the Clallam County WA SMP Update in 2010, 2011? 2012? 2o13? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    On March 30, 2015 I called it a good read “FALSE NEWS”

    Behind My Back | Clallam County SMP Update

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/03/30/3370/

    Mar 30, 2015 – Clallam County SMP Update CLALLAM COUNTY VESTED CITIZENS HAVE A VOICE A GOOD READ 624 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS MARCH …

    ———————————————————

    AFTER THE FACT CLALLAM COUNTY CITIZENS WERE INFORMED

    Any comments received after February 27 2015 will still  be part of the record that will go to the Board of County Commissioners

    The Planning Commission comment period has CLOSED.

    SMP Comments received after the Planning Commission deadline:

    NOTE:

    Any comments received after the February 27, 2015 Planning Commission deadline will still be part of the record, but will only go to the Board of County Commissioners. They are linked in this set below.

    ~~ SCROLL DOWN TO THE NEXT SECTION FOR COMMENTS SENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ~~

    2017 Comments

    2016 Comments

    2015 Comments

    2015 Comments

    011017-EBowen 021716-PHewett 040215 – EBowen 022815 – PHewett
    011017-EBowen 040816-PHewett 041615 – PHewett 030115 – PHewett
    011917-EBowen 040816-BMcGonigel 041915- PHwewtt 030115 – PHewett
    040816-PHewett 042015 – PHewett 030115 – PHewett
    051616-PHewett 052815 _ EBowen 031315 – KSpees
    081016-PHewett 070315 – PHewett 031415 – KSpees
    090916-PHewett 070315 – PHewett 031515 – PHewett
    091016-LPerry 070315 – PHewett 031515 – KSpees
    092716-EBowen 070415 – PHewett 031815 – KSpees
    100716-EBowen 070415 – LPerry 031815 – PHewett
    101616-EBowen 080215 – PHewett 032115 – PHewett
    090215-PHewett 032115 – PHewett
    090815-PHewett 032115 – PHewett
    032115 – PHewett
    032115 – PHewett
    033015 – PHewett
    033115 – KSpees

     

    Clallam County SMP Update

    Clallam County SMP Update

    CLALLAM COUNTY VESTED CITIZENS  HAVE A  VOICE

    A GOOD READ 624 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    MARCH 30, 2015 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDE, CLALLAM COUNTY AFFECTED VESTED SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, INVESTMENT PROPERTY OWNERS, LOCAL BUSINESS,  THE TIMBER INDUSTRY,

    IN PART, OTHERS HAVE THEIR VOICE TOO, PAID  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES  NGO OUT OF TOWNERS, FEDERAL, STATE, AND COUNTY  AND THE TRIBES.

    2015 Comments

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    031815 – PHewett

    031815 – KSpees

    2015 Comments

    031515 – KSpees

    031515 – PHewett

    031415 – KSpees

    031315 – KSpees

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    022815 – PHewett

    SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2015 Comments

    022715 – ForksCity

    022715 – BrandtPtOwners

    022715 – HSmyth

    022715 – SierraClub

    022715 – CGeer

    022715 – LPhelps

    022715 – RFletcher

    022715 – KNorman

    022715 – SBruch

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – DStahler

    022715 – MDoherty

    022715 – SBogg

    022715 – RKnapp – JKT

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – RPhreaner

    022615 – JLarson

    022515 – SierraClub

    022515 – TEngel

    022515 – AMatthay

    022515 – LPhelps

    022515 – KSpees

    022415 – DeptOfInterior

    022415 – TSimpson

    022415 – TFreeman

    022415 – BLake

    022415 – JCress

    022415 – Taylors

    022415 – EGreenleaf

    022315 – GBergner

    022015 – BBrown

    022015 – GBrown

    022015 – TRief

    022015 – RAmaral

    022015 – WCook

    022015 – DKalinski

    022015 – DFrascati

    022015 – JHelpenstell

    022015 – JFletcher

    022015 – CTilden

    022615 – PABA

    022015 – GJensen

    022015 – SWikstrom

    022315 – SBonner

    022215 – JElleot

    022115 – TSage

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    021915 – DWahlgren

    2015 Comments

    021915 – NKoseff

    021915 – KDuff

    021915 – BVreeland

    021915 – CStrickland

    021915 – EStrickland

    021915 – GSmith

    021915 – DOE

    021915 – SGilleland

    021915 – LBowen

    021915 – HMeier

    021915 -DChong

    021915 – SAnderson

    021915 – OEC

    021915 – RHuntman

    021915 – BLynette

    021915 – CWeller

    021815 – WFlint

    021815 – SNoblin

    021815 – LNoblin

    021815 – PHewett

    021815 – KAhlburg

    021815 – EBowen

    021815 – PFreeborn

    021815 – TTaylor

    021815 – KGraves

    0218105 – GCase

    021815 – KCristion

    021815- SReed

    021815 – SLaBelle

    021815 – MGonzalez

    021815 – JAdams

    021815 – SKokrda

    021815 – KFarrell

    0211815 – MMazzie

    021815 -HKaufman

    021815 – MCrimm

    021815 – CCarlson

    021815 – SFarrall

    021815 – JWinders

    021815 – TErsland

    021815 – FWilhelm

    021815 – SPriest

    021815 – RHolbrook

    021815 – LLaw

    021815 – LHendrickson

    021815 – JMaddux

    021815 – DHagen

    021815 – MHinsdale

    021815- DWatson

    021815 – DWarriner

    021815 – DRigselie

    021815 – JBaymore

    2015 Comments

    021815 – Plauché & Carr LLP

    021815 – PHewitt

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – CMiklos

    021815 – PMilliren

    021815 – RPhreaner

    021815 – BBurke

    021815 – GCrow

    021815 – CJohnson – NOTC

    021815 – CParsons – State Parks

    021815 – JMarx

    021715 – JDavidson

    021715 – RAmaral

    021715 – CGuske

    021715 – TTrohimovich – Futurewise

    021815 – DSchanfald

    021715 – Port of PA

    021715 – PMillren

    021715 – EWilladsen

    021615 – EChadd-OCA

    021315 – SLange

    021315 – CKalina

    021215 – RCrittenden

    021115 – RKaplan

    021115 – SScott

    021115 – PHewett

    020915 – RMantooth

    020615 – PRedmond

    020615 – CVonBorstel

    020515 – DHoldren

    020515 – JMichel

    020215 -DHoldren

    020515 – DHoldren

    020415 – SCahill

    020215 – CEvanoff

    013115 – MBlack

    013015 – SHall

    013015 – BConnely

    012715 – BGrad

    012715 – DGladstone

    012715 – BBoekelheide

    012715 – KWiersema

    012015 – JBettcher

    011615 – PHewitt

    011615 – ACook

    011415 – PLavelle

    011215 – PHewitt

    010915 – PHewitt

    010915 – RKnapp

    010715 – WSC

    2014 SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2014 Comments

    122914 – MQuinn

    121614 – OCA

    111814 – PHewett

    111814 – PHewett

    111714 – PHewett

    091514 – PHewett

    081814 – PHewett

    SMP Comments on earlier drafts of the plan can found here

    Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update Public Comments (pre- 2014 )

     The comment codes are as follows:

      • A = Aquaculture
      • B = Buffers
      • CIA – Cumulative Impacts Report
      • CR = Consistency Review Report – Straits
      • G = General SMP Comment
      • G20 = General SMP Comment – Pacific Coast/WRIA 20
      • ICR = Inventory & Characterization Report – Straits
      • ICR20 = Inventory & Characterization Report – Pacific Coast/WRIA 20
      • NNL = No Net Loss
      • PPS = Public Participation Strategy
      • SED = Shoreline Environmental Designation
      • SRP – Shoreline Restoration Plan
      • SMP = Shoreline Master Prgram secondary draft (11/2012)
      • SMPdraft = Shoreline Master Program preliminary draft (3/2012)
      • V = Visioning Statement Report – Straits
      • V20 = Visioning Statement Report – Pacific Coast/WRIA 20

    To include your comments:

    Email Us

    Email Us
    To receive SMP related emails, click “Email Us” above and type “Add to Contact List” in the subject line and send.

    SMP Comments (pre 2014)

    date (mmddyy)- name/agency (first initial & last name ex. JDoe)
    comment code (G; ICR; etc., see above).

    The SMP Update comments below are listed in reverse chronological order.

    2013 Comments

    October 2013

    September 2013:

    August 2013:

    July 2013:

    June 2013:

    May 2013:

    April 2013:

    March 2013:

    February 2013:

    January 2013

     

    2012 Comments

    December 2012:

    November 2012:

    October 2012:

    September 2012:

    August 2012:

    July 2012:

    June 2012:

    May 2012:

    April 2012:

    March 2012:

    February 2012:

    January 2012:

     

    2009-2011 Comments

    December 2011:

    November 2011:

    October 2011:

    September 2011:

    August 2011:

    July 2011:

    June 2011:

    May 2011:

    April 2011:

    March 2011:

    February 2011:

    January 2011:

    SMP Comments 2009-2010

    2010:

    2009:

    AND THE STATUS OF CLALLAM COUNTY  SMP  MARCH 3, 2017?

     CLICK ON CLALLAM COUNTY LINK….

    Clallam County Southwest Under way

    Department of Community Development

    Photo - Mary Ellen Winborn

    Mary Ellen Winborn,
    Director

    The Clallam County Department of Community Development is responsible for comprehensive planning, zoning, and processing of development and building permits.

    Our mission is to promote public safety, a healthy environment, and a strong local economy, and to provide courteous, timely, and efficient service to the public.

    Hours: Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30.

    Courthouse Hours and Holidays.

    Contact Us

     

    Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update

    Shorelines in Clallam County are protected by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and by the Clallam County SMP (see links below).  This website provides SMP Update information and links to local and state shoreline-related materials.

    Shoreline Permits are issued by the Clallam County Department of Community Development Planning Division.
    For information regarding shoreline permits or shoreline exemptions, please call 360-565-2616.

    Many of our documents are in portable document format (PDF), and some are very large.

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program Update : November 2014 NEW draft

    Current SMP Comments

    Comments under review by Planning Commission

    Comments

    Click above to send us your comment~

    The Draft SMP (November 2014) is now under review by the Clallam County Planning Commission (PC)
    NOTE:  The Planning Commission comment period has CLOSED.

    Any comments received after February 27 will still  be part of the record that will go to the Board of County Commissioners.

    Final steps:

    The Planning Commission will submit a recommended Final Draft SMP to the Board of Clallam County Commissioners (BOCC) for adoption.

    The BOCC will hold a public hearing(s) on the PC recommendation.

    The County adopted SMP will be submitted to the Washington Department of Ecology for additional public review and state approval.

    ** Note: The Draft SMP (November 2014) is a work in progress and likely subject to further revision as the local and state SMP process moves forward.

    Email Us MailGuy

    To receive information regarding the SMP Update,
    click “Email Us“to the left.
    Type “Add to Contact List” in subject line.Or call:  360-417-2563

    Shoreline Master Program
    SMP

    SMP Presentations &

    Related Events:

     

    Upcoming Planning Commission Worksessions and meeting minutes

     

    Living with the Coast Workshop

    backArrow Back to SMP Home Page  

    Content Updated May 5, 2015

     

    ————————————————————————-

    It was hell for private shoreline property owners that sat as members of the SMP Advisory Committee. AND AS YOU CAN SEE ABOVE IT STILL IS.

    PDF]Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) Please read this … – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/636_LPerry.pdf
    Jul 4, 2015 – The SMP Advisory Committee that represent the 3300 Clallam .... Recording means the filing of a document(s) for recordation with the … as mitigation and wetland modified for approved land use activities ….. Trouve à http://www.clallam.net/. … ePub(iPone/iPad/iPod) FB2(Android,PC) PDF MOBI(Kindle) …
    ————————————————————————–

    How bad was the Clallam County WA SMP Update

    Sep 2, 2015?

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/638_PHewett.pdf
    Sep 2, 2015 – Chapter 173-20 WAC -SMA–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State … Chapter 173-27 WAC -Shoreline Management Permit and …

    ————————————————————-

    And, March 1, 2017 ECOLOGY IS BACK  WITH MORE “Amended Plus”

    March 1, 2017 WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) is proposing rule amendments related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)  RCW 90.58,

     specifically:

    ————————————————————————–

    —– Original Message —–From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

    To: ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV

    Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 1:34 PM

    Subject: The following proposed rule was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser

    The following proposed rule was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    March 1, 2017 Ecology is proposing rule amendments related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58, specifically:

     

    • Chapter 173-18 WAC – Shoreline Management Act –Streams and Rivers Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-20 WAC – Shoreline Management Act–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-22 WAC – Adoption of Designations of Shorelands and Wetlands Associated with Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-26 WAC- State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master Program Guidelines
    • Chapter 173-27 WAC – Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures

    For more information: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/rules/1506ov.html

    To join or leave ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK click here:

    http://listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK

    Thank you for using WACTrack.

    Have a good day!


  • Drought? Piped Irrigation,Tailwater, BMP

    Drought? Piped Irrigation, Tailwater FC , BMP

    In response to three (3) questions on BMP for Dungeness drought irrigation water.

    Asked after the Sequim Community Drought Forum

    ——————————————————————–

    When we have irrigation water coming from the river into the irrigation pipes past our house and I don’t use it so it just keeps flowing down hill till someone does use it,

    but what happens if it doesn’t get used?

    Does it just dump out in the sound like the river does?

    Or is there an end to the pipe?

    —————————————————-

    Great drought questions. Complicated answer.

    —————————————————————-

    START HERE

    Dungeness River Targeted Watershed Initiative FINAL …  a 47 page report

    www.jamestowntribe.org/…/nrs/TWG_Final%20Report-compressed.pdf

    Dungeness Watershed on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington……………………………. …. NAME OF PROJECT. ….. An extensive irrigation system, which diverts river.

    snippets from the  47 page report

    A statistical evaluation of the effectiveness of best management practice BMPs from Task 2

    (i.e. IRRIGATION PIPING and septic system repairs) for remediating FECAL COLIFORM (FC) BACTERIA.

    ———————————————————————-

    Piping irrigation ditches is considered a best management practice (BMP) for water conservation by preventing conveyance losses.

    Since the water conveyance system is enclosed in a pipe, the possibility of contaminants (fecal coliform (FC)) entering the system is greatly reduced, and if the pipeline is closed at the end, there is no spilling of excess tailwater at the downstream end of the irrigation system

    Monitoring for the effectiveness of irrigation piping was problematic in the sense that downstream samples could not be collected in most cases since the source water was eliminated.

    (all used for irrigating?)

    At one downstream location, the tailwater from a bluff ditch station (IRR-3) that emptied into the Bay was monitored after piping was complete because regulations required that a stormwater conveyance ditch be reconstructed above the pipe to continue to convey runoff.

    After piping, the fecal coliform FC concentration in the stormwater runoff conveyance was not significantly different than before the piping.

    Further analysis examined the impact of piping on tailwater discharge into Dungeness Bay,

    comparing data before and after the piping at three marine monitoring sites located near the freshwater bluff ditch sites. While this was statistically significant,

    it has little meaning from a water quality improvement standpoint.

    A number of benefits of irrigation piping can clearly be demonstrated such as water conservation, reduced ditch maintenance and efficient water delivery,

    However, the empirical evidence of reduction in fecal coliform FC was not clearly apparent from this study.

    —————————————————————-

    Expanded snippets, the full 47 page report is online

    Dungeness River Targeted Watershed Initiative FINAL …

    www.jamestowntribe.org/…/nrs/TWG_Final%20Report-compressed.pdf

    Dungeness Watershed on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington……………………………. …. NAME OF PROJECT. ….. An extensive irrigation system, which diverts river.

    Effectiveness Monitoring of Fecal Coliform Bacteria and Nutrients in the Dungeness Watershed, Washington

    Battelle PNWD-4054-3

    Pacific Northwest Division

    Richland, Washington 99352

    Prepared for:

    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe in fulfillment of Task 3 (Effectiveness Monitoring Study) of the Dungeness River Watershed Final Work plan for the EPA Targeted Watershed Grant Program (2004)

    October 2009

     This study was conducted as part of an Environmental Protection Agency EPA Targeted Watershed Grant awarded to the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe in 2004 that focused surface water cleanup efforts in the lower Dungeness Watershed and Dungeness Bay in Washington State

     http://www.jamestowntribe.org/programs/nrs/FINAL_EM_RPT%28Oct_09%29v_2.pdf

    Piping irrigation ditches is considered a best management practice (BMP) for water conservation by preventing conveyance losses.

    Since the water conveyance system is enclosed in a pipe, the possibility of contaminants entering the system is greatly reduced, and if the pipeline is closed at the end, there is no spilling of excess tailwater at the downstream end of the irrigation system

    Monitoring for the effectiveness of irrigation piping was problematic in the sense that downstream samples could not be collected in most cases since the source water was eliminated. Median concentrations from the two upstream stations were 10 and 128 CFU/100 ml.

    At one downstream location, the tailwater from a bluff ditch station (IRR-3) that emptied into the Bay was monitored after piping was complete because regulations required that a stormwater conveyance ditch be reconstructed above the pipe to continue to convey runoff.

    After piping, the fecal coliform FC concentration in the stormwater runoff conveyance was not significantly different than before the piping.

    Further analysis examined the impact of piping on tailwater discharge into Dungeness Bay,

    comparing data before and after the piping at three marine monitoring sites located near the freshwater bluff ditch sites.

    One marine station, DOH-110 was significantly different before and after piping. However, the geometric mean at this site before piping

    was 7 CFU/100 ml and after the piping was 4 CFU/100 ml. While this was statistically significant, it has little meaning from a water quality improvement standpoint.

    A number of benefits of irrigation piping can clearly be demonstrated such as water conservation, reduced ditch maintenance and efficient water delivery, however the empirical evidence of reduction in fecal coliform FC was not clearly apparent from this study.

    In the case where an irrigation ditch was piped to eliminate tailwater, but the piped ditch closely coupled the path of a stormwater runoff conveyance into the Bay, the benefits were reduced.

    However, the potential source of contamination to this ditch is from a much smaller geographic area than prior to piping when several miles of open irrigation ditch led to this discharge location

    A statistical evaluation of the effectiveness of BMPs from Task 2(i.e. irrigation piping and septic system repairs)for remediating fecal coliform bacteria. The my core mediation best management practice BMP effectiveness is discussed in a separate report (Thomas et al. 2009)

    The overall results of this study have not shown an improvement in surface water quality with respect to fecal coliform bacteria in the Dungeness watershed or Dungeness Bay within the last 10 years. However, water quality conditions have not declined within the watershed either.

    This is notable when considering the population within the  Dungeness watershed has steadily increased during this time period.

    ————————————————————————-

    In fact, asking your three short questions was the prelude to the following.

    Finding the answer was a bit more complicated. It took several hours of research going from one website to another.

    However, it was time well spent, in connecting the dots, many vital failures of public notification shall now become open, transparent and someone must be held accountable.

    In one of the following documents the FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS, failure of legal requirements for public notification of public meetings was mentioned and what remedial actions must be taken to comply with the WA State Public Meeting Act.

    This documented information of PUBLIC MEETINGS without legal, public notification, participation and public comment  SPANS A VERY LONG PERIOD IN TIME.

     ————————————————————————————-

    The more “We the People” know and can document, the better. Another chapter in the book of revelations by Pearl Revere

    ———————————————————————–

    I found this.. I did not research it,  It was mentioned briefly at the Drought Forum, But who knew why?

    2015 Emergency Drought affect on More Creek Water users?

    Technical Memorandum – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/environment/…/SSA_Memo_Final.pdf

    Clallam County

    “Morse Creek is the largest of the independent drainages to salt water between the Dun- …. of 3,800′. It is the westernmost stream influenced directly by Dungeness area irrigation ….. Since 2000 the piping of many reaches of irrigation ditch has re- ….. Thus, the occurrence of baseflow in this reach expands and contracts up-.

    —————————————————————————-

     2015 Dungeness Watershed (7) irrigation systems

    More images for irrigation systems in the dungeness watershed

    one diagram shows two pipeline that end dumping into the bay

    ————————————————————

    Minutes – January 13, 2015 – Clallam CD

    www.clallamcd.org/storage/dist-business/…/Minutes2015-0113.pdf

    Jan 13, 2015 – Ben Smith informed the Board that the Water Users Association (WUA), … The WUA has not drafted a proposal yet, but wanted to see first if the …

    ——————————————————————–

    Minutes – January 13, 2015 – Clallam CD

    www.clallamcd.org/storage/dist-business/…/Minutes2015-0113.pdf

    Jan 13, 2015 – Interlocal Agreement with Clallam County for Pollution Identification & Correction (PIC) Planning…PIC Implementation I … finalizing the contract after removing Addendum A (relating to co-location of offices). … DUNGENESS IRRIGATION DISTRICT DITCH PIPING PROIECT’ in the amount of$l,0| 1.19. … Ben Smith informed the Board that the Water Users Association (WUA), …

    ———————————————————————————–

    Dungeness River Targeted Watershed Initiative FINAL …

    www.jamestowntribe.org/…/nrs/TWG_Final%20Report-compressed.pdf

    Dungeness Watershed on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington……………………………. …. NAME OF PROJECT. ….. AN EXTENSIVE IRRIGATION SYSTEM, WHICH DIVERTS RIVER.

    ————————————————————————–

    November 12, 2014 APPROVED Meeting Notes Dungeness …

    home.olympus.net/~dungenesswc/docs/…/2014-11%20notes.pdf

    Nov 12, 2014 – Jennifer Bond, Clallam Conservation District … I. Introductions/Review Agenda/Review & Approve October DRMT Draft … District, provided an update presentation on the PIC (Pollution. Identification and Correction) Plan project status. …. Will look at opportunities for revising program in ways that would …

    —————————————————————————-

    October 23, 2014 – Clallam CD

    www.clallamcd.org/storage/…/agenda…/20141023_PIC_Agenda__Notes…

    Oct 23, 2014 – AGENDA. Pollution Identification & Correction Planning Meeting … Bond (CCD), Matt Heins (CCD), Stephanie Zurenko (DOE), Ivan … Jennifer and Andy gave a presentation on the draft PIC plan to the … Hansi also briefed the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe’s Natural Resources Committee on the status of the.

    ——————————————————————-

    My first Google search diagramhttps://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=2015+dungeness+watershed+%287%29+irrigation+systems+diagram

    —————————————————————————-

    Documented questions on irrigation water

    —– Original Message —–

    From: “diane <

    To: “pearl hewett” <phew@wavecable.com>

    Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 3:56 PM

    Subject: Re: Citizen Review on Our Drought Forum

    Pearl please forgive the silliness of my question.

    When we have irrigation water coming from the river into the irrigation pipes past our house and I don’t use it so it just keeps flowing down hill till someone does use it, but what happens if it doesn’t get used? Does it just dump out in the sound like the river does? Or is there an end to the pipe? OK that is my question for today.

    ——————————————————————–

    Diane,

    Please forgive me for MY DOCUMENTED, convoluted extremely complex and difficult to follow intricately folded, twisted, coiled, complicated, sometimes, depends, on usually, or not, response to your (3) DROUGHT irrigation water questions.

    Pearl

     


  • Past and Present Drought in WA State

    History of Droughts in Washington State

    An interesting read on WA State DROUGHT PLANS

    BEFORE THE INSTREAM FLOW RULES.

    History of Droughts in Washington State_1977.pdf  A 43 page document

    ———————————————————————————–

    PRESENT DROUGHT PLANS FOR CITIZENS IN WA STATE?

    AFTER THE INSTREAM FLOW RULES?

    May 24, 2015  The WA statewide drought emergency PLAN?.

    Hmmm…  LAWMAKERS have yet to act on DOE’s request for $9.6 million in drought relief funds. The request came in late March, weeks after legislators began putting together spending plans.

    UPDATE: WHAT’S THE HOLDUP ON THE $9.6 MILLION IN DROUGHT RELIEF FUNDS?

    What’s the problem?

    WATER FOR CITIZENS IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR…

    IT’S A VALUE JUDGMENT

    At a drought committee meeting Monday, Honeyford reminded Stanford that he had been willing to embrace Stanford’s drought preparation bill in exchange for the House approving legislation to let the city of Lynden draw water from the Nooksack River in Whatcom County.

    Tribes and environmental groups oppose the bill, which passed the Senate.

    ————————————————————————-

    THE “CITIZENS  REVIEW” OF ECOLOGY’S DROUGHT PLANS IN WA STATE?

    What YOU can expect at a COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUM?

    This  Report by Lois Krafsky-Perry
    for Citizen Review
    Posted Saturday, May 23, 2015

    Sequim/Dungeness community listens to drought concerns

    IT’S A MUST READ

    http://citizenreviewonline.org/sequimdungeness-community-listens-to-drought-concerns/

    CITIZENS REVIEW  is an online  resource for disseminating critical information to keep citizens informed

    —————————————————————————————————

    AS PROVIDED ABOVE BY LOIS…

    We the people have partners too….

    My website, behindmyback.org,  is dedicated to investigating, researching, documenting, UPDATING and disseminating critical information to help keep American citizens informed by posting and reporting things they don’t know. This is just one chapter in the book of revelations by Pearl Revere.

    ————————————————————————————————

     A 43 page document History of Droughts in Washington State_1977.pdf

    MEDIA Drought alert Sun., Feb. 6, 1977  

    WOW! THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    Dear Reader: On February 16, 1977, Governor Dixy Lee Ray established the “Governor’s … drought occurrences in the State of Washington since 1900. Various.

    OCR Text

    Northwest Officials ponder energy outlook By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Some nfflntnla HUn n*a« nn n_.. «-L. nn«<m.»». .i~-i_i_n.. M .-. THE DAILY NEWS—21 Angeles, Wash., Sun., Feb. 6, 1977

    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Nervous government weather- watchers are mobilizing for battle should a Pacific Northwest drought short-circuit electric power and whither crops this spring. Homeowners may be asked — or forced — to reduce their electrical use. During Christmas, Seattle City Light asked its 370,000 customers not to use outdoor decorative lighting. Further sacrifices may be around the corner if a serious drought occurs.

    —————————————————————————-

    MEDIA COVERAGE?   2015 WA STATE DROUGHT?  

    NOT SO MUCH..

    CAPITAL PRESS  Published:  

    Their full media report is  here

    Washington’s late reaction to drought revives legislation …

    www.capitalpress.com/Washington/…/washingtons-late-react

    Capital Press May 14, 2015 – A House bill to revise how the state prepares for a drought sank in the Senate, but may resurface in the special session.

    ——————————————————————————-

    Ecology’s  current drought report is sort of an interesting reading.

    Last revised: May 22, 2015

    Washington Drought 2015 | Washington State Department …

    www.ecy.wa.gov/drought/

    3 days ago – Washington State Weekly Drought Update – Office of Washington State … Current Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) % of Normal – View Map …

    ——————————————————–

    And more history…. a response from Ecology

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Marti, Jeff (ECY)

    To: pearl hewett

    Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 5:23 PM

    Subject: RE: History of Droughts in Washington State

    Pearl, good sleuthing.   1977 was indeed a bad drought year, which triggered the (still ongoing) Yakima water rights adjudication.

    Here’s a couple more reports that you might find interesting.

    Jeff

    ————————————

    Jeff Marti

    Water Resources Program

    360-407-6627

    jeff.marti@ecy.wa.gov

    2005 Drought Response Report to the Legislature

    www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0611001.html

    • 2005 Drought Response Report to the Legislature … While it is generally viewed as a climate anomaly, in fact drought is the dry part of the normal climate cycle.

    Drought Response 2001: Report to the Legislature

    www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0111017.html

    Author(s), Curt Hart. Description, This legislative report outlines how the state agencies responsible for managing Washington’s emergency drought activities .

    ——————————————————————————-

    History of Droughts in Washington State 1900 to 1977 etc…

    Title History of Droughts in Washington State
    Publication Type Report
    Year of Publication 1977
    Authors Staff, GAHEWEC
    Keywords climate, droughts, environment, historic, history, washington, water
    Title History of Droughts in Washington State
    Publication Type Report
    Year of Publication 1977
    Authors Staff, GAHEWEC
    Keywords climate, droughts, environment, historic, history, washington, water

     



  • WA State Wetland Draft?

    WHAT WA State Wetland Draft?

    DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN

     Please send comments by December 31, 2014 to Susan Buis

    —————————————————————————

    DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN

    WHO?  WAS NOTIFIED ABOUT THIS WETLAND PLAN?

    WHEN WAS THE PUBLIC NOTIFIED?

    HOW DID ECOLOGY NOTIFY THE PUBLIC?

    —————————————————————

     I signed up for ECOLOGY’S WAC TRACK?

    So I could keep track of what ECOLOGY was up to and participate with public comments.

     SOWhen did WA State Department of Ecology NOTIFY THE PUBLIC (that would be me) about THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN, WHAT METHOD OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION DID ECOLOGY USE?   ECOLOGY’S WAC TRACK?

     —————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    IF PUBLIC REVIEW is ACTUALLY an important step in improving this strategic wetland program plan for Washington State?

    As a WA State vested private property owner, I am requesting an extension on the Public Comment period for THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN.

    GIVEN ADDITIONAL AND  SUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT,

    I would be delighted TO REVIEW AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN.

    ——————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | We Need a New Public Notice Act

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/12/…/weneed-a-new-a-publicnotice-act/

    Dec 8, 2014 – WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY CASES IN … to create a more stringent public notification and participation process by …

    ———————————————————————-

    My after the fact comment (Jan. 1, 2015)

    “That any WA State  property owner that lives within 150 feet of a mud puddle has a reason to be concerned,”…

    My comment on Feb. 1, 2011

    “That any type of property owner that lives within 150 feet of a mud puddle has a reason to be concerned,”…

    Clallam County shoreline update draws fears, criticism …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/news/…/clallam-c…

    Feb 1, 2011 Peninsula Daily News

    ———————————————————————————–

    SO…. In 2013, the Department of Ecology received a Wetland Program Development Grant (WPDG), from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to develop a statewide plan for wetlands of the state.

     SO… The WA State Department of Ecology received taxpayers money to spend on this wetland draft?

    INDEED, WE THE VESTED PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY CASES IN ... to create a more stringent PUBLIC NOTIFICATION and participation process by …

    —————————————————————————————–

    WOW…. State agencies involved in WETLAND MANAGEMENT collaborated on developing the plan.  They also received input from tribal governments, local governments, and federal agencies.

    SO…. EXACTLY HOW MANY PUBLIC COMMENTS, FROM VESTED PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS,  DID WA State Department of Ecology receive ON THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN?

    WA State Department of Ecology also received input from local governments?

    What input did WA State Department of Ecology receive from our elected Clallam County Commissioners’ ON THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN?

    ——————————————————-

    AFTER THE FACT CONTACT INFORMATION

    Susan Buis
    Washington State Department of Ecology

    360-407-7653
    susan.buis@ecy.wa.gov

    ——————————————————————————————

    DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN

    A draft of the Wetland Program Plan is now available for PUBLIC REVIEW

    Thank you for your willingness TO REVIEW AND COMMENT on this draft.

    PUBLIC REVIEW is an important step in improving this strategic wetland program plan for Washington State.

    Please send comments by December 31, 2014 to Susan Buis

    —————————————————————

    DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN

    Background

    In 2013, the Department of Ecology received a Wetland Program Development Grant (WPDG), from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to develop a statewide plan for wetlands of the state. A draft of the Wetland Program Plan is now available for public review.

    The WPP outlines what the state strives to accomplish regarding core elements of a wetland program.  It is a comprehensive plan and, as a result, not all of it can be accomplished in the near future.  Therefore, AFTER THE COMMENT PERIOD, decisions will be made regarding which actions identified in the WPP should receive the state’s focus over the next six years. 

    State agencies involved in wetland management collaborated on developing the plan.  They also received input from tribal governments, local governments, and federal agencies.

    More information about the plan can be found within the document itself or on the Wetland Program Plan webpage.

    Informational webinar

    Ecology will be hosting a webinar on December 10, 2014 at 6:30pm to answer any questions you may have about the Wetland Program Plan. To sign up for the webinar, contact Susan Buis (contact information below).

    How to Comment

    You do not have to edit the document for grammar or punctuation. We are asking you to provide feedback on content and your understanding of the document. If you are not able to review the entire document, please focus on the section of most interest to you or provide comments on the action tables at the end of each section. Please let us know if there are any sections that are unclear. We would also appreciate any ideas or suggestions you have to improve the content.

    You can provide comments in several ways:

    1. Download a copy of the document and use track changes.
    2. Request the document in Word 2007 and then provide comments and edits using track changes.
    3. Write comments on a printed paper copy of the document.
    4. Write a separate Word document in which you provide detailed comments or suggestions. Please indicate the section or page and paragraph to which your comment or suggestion applies.
    5. Provide feedback on the Core Element Action Tables (PDF) by taking this Survey Monkey survey.

    Please send comments by December 31, 2014 to Susan Buis via email or postal mail at:

    Susan Buis
    Washington State Department of Ecology
    P.O. Box 47600
    Olympia, WA 98504
    360-407-7653
    susan.buis@ecy.wa.gov

    Thank you for your willingness to review and comment on this draft.

    PUBLIC REVIEW is an important step in improving this strategic wetland program plan for Washington State.

    ————————————————————————

    The bottom line

    IF? PUBLIC REVIEW is ACTUALLY an important step in improving this strategic wetland program plan for Washington State?

    As a WA State vested private property owner, I am requesting an extension on the Public Comment period for THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN.

    GIVEN ADDITIONAL AND SUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT,

     I would be delighted TO REVIEW AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON

    THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN.

     

    Pearl Rains Hewett

     

     


  • (2) WA Parks-People Hate the Discover Pass

    (2) WA Parks-People Hate the Discover Pass

    OPTION? GET RID OF THE DISCOVER PASS?

    WHY DO PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS?

    THE HEAD OF WA STATE PARKS? HE LIKES THE DISCOVER PASS?  (a new style  is being created?)

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS AND THE DISCOVER PASS  PARKING TICKETS  that are issued by Washington State Parks. … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples … Discover Pass parking tickets are issued by Washington State Parks. … An annual “Discover Pass “ is a white pass mounted on a yellow hanger, with “Discover … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. AND, for improper display of the pass. Both my sister and my daughter were ticketed on the same day for improper display

    PARKING TICKETS?

    PROBLEMS? WHAT PROBLEMS?

    Confused?

    YOUR ignorance is no excuse?

    —————————————————————-

    PARKING TICKETS?

    COMMON REASONS TO USE THE EXPLANATION FORM 1. You displayed the wrong pass. The following are NOT valid at WA State Parks or for DNR.

    • Northwest Forest Pass            
    • Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Pass issued with fishing/hunting licenses            
    • Federal park passes            
    • Snow park passes
    • America the Beautiful Senior Pass (formerly Golden Age Passport)            
    • America the Beautiful Access Pass            
    • Watchable Wildlife Decal            
    • Senior Pass

    2. You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples include a, failure to fill in license plate numbers or a wrong license plate number on the pass; a   crossed out license plate number, or more than two plate numbers.

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS.

    NO DUH! The people that have lived in WA State most of their lives,  DON’T WANT TO PAY TO “DISCOVER” WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW THAT WE HAVE. 

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS “TICKETS” Discover Pass parking tickets are issued by Washington State Parks. … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples … Discover Pass parking tickets are issued by Washington State Parks. … An annual “Discover Pass “ is a white pass mounted on a yellow hanger, with “Discover … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass.

    An annual “Discover Pass “ is a white OR green  pass mounted on a yellow hanger, with “Discover Pass” written on the front of the white OR green pass.  A valid “Day Pass” is also available at each park.

     If the white pass has “WDFW” written on it, it is not a Discover Pass and is not valid for State Parks.

    1. Pay in full within 15 days. You may use electronic or phone payment options below.
    2. Request a hearing in writing as explained on the ticket within 15 days.
    3. Mail in an explanation in writing by completing and mailing the explanation form with payment and supporting documentation within 15 days.

    If you choose to mail in a written explanation you must use the Explanation Form, which is available by clicking here

    Common Reasons to use the Explanation Form 1. You displayed the wrong pass. The following are NOT valid at WA State Parks or for DNR.

    • Northwest Forest Pass            
    • Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Pass issued with fishing/hunting licenses            
    • Federal park passes            
    • Snow park passes
    • America the Beautiful Senior Pass (formerly Golden Age Passport)            
    • America the Beautiful Access Pass            
    • Watchable Wildlife Decal            
    • Senior Pass

    2. You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples include a, failure to fill in license plate numbers or a wrong license plate number on the pass; a   crossed out license plate number, or more than two plate numbers.

    ————————————————————————

    DISCOVERY PASS PROBLEMS? WHAT PROBLEMS?

    DISCOVERY PASS CONFUSION? WHAT CONFUSION?

    WHY DO PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS?

    HAVE I ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS?

    NOW IT IS TIME FOR THE  BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE, APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR ON PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION TO  FOCUS ON THE DISCOVERY PASS, HATRED, PROBLEMS AND CONFUSION AND GENERATE ENOUGH MONEY FOR THE BACKLOG OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE  RECREATION AND TOURISM.

     to be continued…

     


  • Ecology’s Expedited Rule Making?

    Washington Department of Ecology AO #14-01

    NOTICE THIS RULE REPEAL IS BEING PROPOSED UNDER AN EXPEDITED

    RULE- MAKING PROCESS THAT WILL

    (1)  ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR ECOLOGY TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS?

    OBJECTION (1) UNDER WA STATE RCW 42.56.030 THE PEOPLE, IN DELEGATING AUTHORITY, DO NOT GIVE THEIR PUBLIC SERVANTS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE TO KNOW AND WHAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THEM TO KNOW.

    ———————————————————————————————————

    (2) )  ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR ECOLOGY TO PREPARE A SMALL BUSINESS ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT?

    OBJECTION (2) UNDER WA STATE RCW 42.56.030 TO ASSURE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL BE FULLY PROTECTED.

    RCW 19.85.040 Small business economic impact statement — Purpose

    ————————————————————————————————————

    (3)   ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR ECOLOGY TO  PROVIDE RESPONSES TO THE CRITERIA FOR A SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATIVE RULE.

    OBJECTION (3) UNDER WA STATE RCW 42.56.030

    THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE DO NOT YIELD THEIR SOVEREIGNTY TO THE AGENCIES THAT SERVE THEM.

    The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.

    ————————————————————————–

    IF YOU OBJECT TO THIS USE OF THE EXPEDITED RULE-MAKING PROCESS, YOU MUST EXPRESS YOUR OBJECTIONS IN WRITING AND THEY MUST BE SENT TO

    Name: Bari Schreiner –Agency Rules Coordinator

    Agency: Washington Department of Ecology

    Address: PO 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600

    E- mail: rulemaking@ecy.wa.gov

    ——————————————————————————————

    INDEED, UNDER WA STATE RCW 42.56.030 I DO OBJECT TO THIS USE AND ANY OTHER USE OF THE EXPEDITED RULE-MAKING PROCESS BY ECOLOGY.

    THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE DO NOT YIELD THEIR SOVEREIGNTY TO THE AGENCIES THAT SERVE THEM.

    THE PEOPLE, IN DELEGATING AUTHORITY, DO NOT GIVE THEIR PUBLIC SERVANTS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE TO KNOW AND WHAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THEM TO KNOW.

    THE PEOPLE INSIST ON REMAINING INFORMED SO THAT THEY MAY MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER THE INSTRUMENTS THAT THEY HAVE CREATED.

    This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and TO ASSURE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL BE FULLY PROTECTED.

    in the event of conflict between the provisions of this chapter and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.
    [2007 c 197 § 2; 2005 c 274 § 283; 1992 c 139 § 2. Formerly RCW 42.17.251.]

    ————————————————————————————————-

    TO ASSURE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL BE FULLY PROTECTED?

    OPEN MEETINGS ACT  42.30.060, Ordinances, rules, resolutions, regulations, etc., adopted at public meetings — Notice — Secret voting prohibited. … 42.30.075, Schedule of regular meetings — Publication in state register — Notice of change …

    ——————————————————————————————————————

    IF YOU OBJECT TO THIS USE OF THE EXPEDITED RULE-MAKING PROCESS, YOU MUST EXPRESS YOUR OBJECTIONS IN WRITING AND THEY MUST BE SENT TO ECOLOGY?

    INDEED, UNDER WA STATE RCW 42.56.030 I DO OBJECT TO THIS USE  AND ANY OTHER USE OF THE EXPEDITED RULE-MAKING PROCESS BY ECOLOGY.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    OBJECTION (1) UNDER WA STATE RCW 42.56.030 THE PEOPLE, IN DELEGATING AUTHORITY, DO NOT GIVE THEIR PUBLIC SERVANTS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE TO KNOW AND WHAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THEM TO KNOW.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    OBJECTION (2) UNDER WA STATE RCW 42.56.030 TO ASSURE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL BE FULLY PROTECTED.

    —————————————————————————

    OBJECTION (3) UNDER WA STATE RCW 42.56.030

    THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE DO NOT YIELD THEIR SOVEREIGNTY TO THE AGENCIES THAT SERVE THEM.

    The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.

    —————————————————————————-

    Mar 10, 2014 – … AN IMPACT ON STATE FOIA. HERE IS A LIST OF OPEN MEETINGS LAWSUITS IN WASHINGTON. … THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT STATES?

    WA STATE RCW 42.56.030


  • The Public Meeting “Observer”

    The Public Meeting OBSERVER

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? 

    “If you’re not allowed  to use your free speech to criticize your own government, at a PUBLIC MEETING, then what the hell is the point of having it?”

    —————————————————-

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? 

     THE “NEW” PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA FOR OBSERVER PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —————————————-

    OBSERVER by definition

     

    (1) A person who follows events, especially political ones, closely and COMMENTS PUBLICLY ON THEM.

     

    (2) A  person who watches or notices something

     

    (3) A fly on the wall

    ————————————————————

    Something new has been added to the agenda

    by the Jefferson County Planning Commission

    (complete text bottom)

     ————————————————————

    The Public Meeting OBSERVER-PUBLIC COMMENTS

    Public Meeting OBSERVER

    (1) Historically A person who follows events, especially political ones, closely and COMMENTS PUBLICLY on them,

    has now been officially designate as

    PUBLIC MEETING OBSERVER (3) A FLY ON THE WALL.

     ————————————————————————

     

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?  SILENCING THE VOICE OF OPPOSITION

    “Once a government is committed to the principle of SILENCING THE VOICE OF OPPOSITION, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

    ———————————————————————————-

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?  ENFORCED SILENCE

     If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, NOT ENFORCED SILENCE.”

     

    ———————————————————————–

    1 day ago – OTHER MEETINGS? Page 1. “Meetings, Smeetings…” What’s the Big Deal? Page 9. Attendees? Right to speak? It’s OK to FORBID ANYONE …

    ————————————————————————-

    Complete text

    JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

    MEETING AGENDA

    1:30 P.M. Wednesday, June 4, 2014

    Queets-Clearwater School, 146000 Hwy 101 (South of Forks)

    ——————————————————-

    Something new has been added

    by the Jefferson County Planning Commission

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? 

    ————————————————–

    OBSERVER COMMENT

    We encourage public participation and

    welcome comments submitted anytime in

    writing or by email at the address shown

    above. We want to hear your ideas or

    concerns.

    The Observer Comment Period on the

    agenda is:

    • An optional time period dedicated to

    listening to the public – Planning

    Commission is not required to provide

    response;

    • Offered at the Chair’s discretion when

    there’s time;

    • Not a public hearing – comments made

    during this time will not be part of any

    hearing record;

    • May be structured with a three-minute per

    person time limit.

    When the Chair recognizes you to speak,

    please begin by stating your name and

    address.

    Audience members are asked to avoid

    disrupting the business being conducted and

    are welcome to interact informally with

    Planning Commissioners before or after the

    meeting and during the break.

    Please silence cell phones and other devices

    ————————————————————————-

    The bottom line

    “If you’re not allowed  to use your free speech to criticize your own government, at a PUBLIC MEETING, then what the hell is the point of having it?”

     

    ———————————————————————–

    1:30 PM A. OPENING BUSINESS:

    • Call to Order – Kevin Coker, Chair

    • Roll Call & Quorum of Members

    • Approval of Agenda

    • Approval of 5/21 Meeting Minutes

    • Staff Updates

    • Committee Reports/ Commissioner Announcements

    1:45 PM B. CONTINUED BUSINESS:

    1. Comprehensive Plan Update

    2. Planning Commission Public Survey

    3:00 PM Observer Comment

    3:15 PM C. CLOSING BUSINESS:

    • Summary of today’s meeting –

    Follow-up action items

    • Agenda items for next meeting –

    June 18, 2014 at 6:30 pm at Quilcene School

    3:30 PM D. ADJOURNMENT

    ————————————————————————–

    PUBLIC SERVANTare not the people’s master

     

    PUBLIC SERVANTS?   ARE ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES

    All public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof.

    —————————————————————————–

     RCW 42.30.030Meetings declared open and public

    All meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body of a public agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

    —————————————————————————–

    Chapter 42.30 RCW

    OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT

    RCW 42.30.010

    Legislative declaration.

    The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

    ————————————————————————————–

    RCW 42.30.130

    Violations.— Mandamus or injunction Any person may commence an action either by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of stopping violations or preventing threatened violations of this chapter by members of a governing body.

    ————————————————-

     

     


  • Shut Us Up? and Kick Us Out?

    Shut Us Up? and Kick Us Out?

    SOMEONE? AT MRC APPROVED AND ALLOWED this OFFENSIVE 14 PAGE power point presentation,  under  PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS?

    SOMEONE? AT MRC APPROVED AND ALLOWED  it to be a part of the  program for  the 2013 MRC Summit Nov. 7, 2013 AND NOW THEY OWN IT!

     

    PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS?

     

    Page 1. “Meetings, Smeetings…” What’s the Big Deal?

     

    Page 9. Attendees? Right to speak? It’s OK to FORBID ANYONE TO SPEAK.

     

    Page 10. Disruptive Attendees, those creating the disruption may be REMOVED.

    ——————————————————————–

     WOW who knew? in the U.S.A, with all of our Constitution Rights, like free speech …

    That IGNORANT? DISRUPTIVE? PUBLIC ATTENDEES?  AT AN OPEN PUBLIC MEETING?

    Should be Shut Up? and Kicked Out? of PUBLIC MEETINGS?

    ————————————————————————————

     PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS?

    The bottom line (as usual page 13 on a 14 page report)

     “Meetings, Smeetings…” What’s the Big Deal?

     

    Page 13. Real Life: Where might problems arise?

     

    Page 13. PUBLIC IGNORANCE, WHO THROUGH misinterpretation, THOSE WHO’S lack of understanding, etc.

     

    Page 13. The IGNORANT PUBLIC, MAY Intentional disrespect these MRC directives.

    ———————————————————————————

     

    Google, 2013 Costal MRC Summit – Surfrider foundation’s  

     

     (the attachment is available by email contact phew@wavecable.com)

    OPEN THE ATTACHMENT READ THE WHOLE 14 pages.

     THIS IS OFFENSIVE.

     

    ————————————————————————————-

    ARE YOU ONE OF THE IGNORANT, DISRUPTIVE, PUBLIC THAT ATTENDS PUBLIC MEETINGS?

    —————————————————————————————————-

    I  am demanding accountability from our elected representative in Olympia and answers to the following questions.

    Public vs  Other Meetings

     

    WHO? I WANT A NAME, WHO?  AT MRC APPROVED THIS

     “Meetings, Smeetings…” What’s the Big Deal?

    AS PART OF THE PROGRAM FOR THE 2013 MRC Summit Nov. 7, 2013

     

    WHO WROTE? CONTRIBUTED? AND WHO PRESENTED? THIS OFFENSIVE 14 PAGE PROGRAM?

     

    ———————————————————————————–

    DISRUPTIVE PUBLIC ATTENDEES ?  AT AN OPEN PUBLIC MEETING?

     

    Shut THEM Up? and Kick THEM Out?

     

    God, forbid…. that 200 say, DISRUPTIVE IGNORANT PUBLIC ATTENDEES from 4C’s should be disruptive at  County Commissioners meeting to pull Clallam County out of ICLEI.

     

    Did Clallam County Shut Us Up? and Kick Us Out?

    Jones provided one caveat, saying, “What’s not trivial is the right to free speech. The commissioners are rightly taking the people’s opinion into consideration.”

    —————————————————————————————————————–

    Attitude is everything

    Page 1. “Meetings, Smeetings…” What’s the Big Deal?

    Public vs. Other Meetings?

     Page 7. BENDING THE RULES?

    The MRC meeting  “legal rational” on and for “The Public Meetings Act” presented a  is offensive.

     

    —————————————————————————————————-

     

    Who paid for Clallam County employee Cathy Lear to attend and present? “Lessons learned from the Clallam County Update Process” – Cathy Lear

     

    I am offended that a paid Clallam County employee, Cathy Lear, is being INDOCTRINATED by an offensive MRC 14 page presentation ridiculing the Open Public Meeting Act (OPRA) that portrays people, the PUBLIC, that attend public meetings as ignorant and disruptive.

     

    The offensive MRC 14 page presentation, that implies, that Running Organized Effective Meetings can’t be accomplished, WITH THE IGNORANT DISRUPTIVE PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE. AKA the Open Public Meeting Act (OPRA)

    ——————————————————————-

     

    ARE YOU ONE OF THE IGNORANT, DISRUPTIVE, PUBLIC THAT ATTENDS PUBLIC MEEETINGS?

     

    Are you offended? I am offended, I did and have attend many public meetings, as a disruptive ignorant member of the public, during, before and after, my three years as an unpaid volunteer  member of the SMP Update committee…

     

     —————————————————————————————-

    Public vs. Other Meetings?

     

    Page 1. “Meetings, Smeetings…” What’s the Big Deal?

     

    Indeed, the offensive 14 page power point presentation was approved and  ALLOWED BY MRC  at the 2013 MRC Summit Nov. 7, 2013 is thumbing their nose at the OPEN PUBLIC MEETING ACT (OPMA)

     

    SOMEONE? AT MRC, APPROVED AND ALLOWED the OFFENSIVE 14 page power point presentation, yet another, government official,  agency, federal, state, city, town, committee, public servants  councils and in collaboration with Global NON-Government agencies, the Surfrider Foundation and The Nature’s Conservancy ….

    AND NOW THEY OWN IT.

    THE OFFICIAL MCR PRESENTATION ON HOW TO?

    Page 7. BENDING THE RULES?

    Page 13. The IGNORANT PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE

    Shut Us Up? and Kick Us Out?

    Page 10. THOSE DISRUPTIVE ATTENDEES

    Shutting Us Up? and Kicking Us Out?

    Page 9. Attendees? Right to speak? It’s OK to FORBID ANYONE TO SPEAK.

    Shutting Us Up? and Kicking Us Out?

    Page 10. Disruptive Attendees, those creating the disruption may be REMOVED

    Shutting Us Up? and Kicking Us Out?

    Page 12. In Practice, Should OPMA directives be followed here?

    THE BOTTOM LINE

    Page 13. Real Life: Where might problems arise?

    Page 13. PUBLIC IGNORANCE, WHO THROUGH misinterpretation, THOSE WHO’S lack of understanding, etc.

    Page 13. The IGNORANT PUBLIC, MAY Intentional disrespect these MRC directives.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL ABOUT THAT?

    Page 1. “Meetings, Smeetings…” What’s the Big Deal?

    NOW,  It is time for some IGNORANT DISRUPTIVE PUBLIC (PERSON) to ask the Attorney General’s Office

    “Meetings, Smeetings…” What’s the Big Deal?

     From a legal stand point on the OPEN PUBLIC MEETING ACT (OPMA)

     

    Indeed, the power point presentation ALLOWED at 2013 MRC Summit Nov. 7, 2013, Intentional, sarcasm and  disrespect for “We the ignorant PUBLIC (taxpaying, American People)” that paid for the 2013 MRC Summit Nov. 7, 2013

     

    The MCR presentation  asks?

    Page 2. Should we follow OPMA directive?

    Page 7. BENDING THE RULES?

    ——————————————————————————

     I sent this “Meetings, Smeetings…” What’s the Big Deal? to our reps in Olympia…

    —————————————————————–

    NOW,  It is time for some IGNORANT DISRUPTIVE PUBLIC PERSON to ask the Attorney General’s Office to weigh in…

     

    “Meetings, Smeetings…” What’s the Big Deal?

     From a legal stand point on the OPEN PUBLIC MEETING ACT (OPMA)

     

    MCR’S  approval of the Shut Us Up? and Kick Us Out? public meeting policy?

     

    ——————————————————————————-

     2013 Coastal MRC Summit

     Organizing & Running Effective Meetings

                 The bottom line is? MRC CAN’T RUN AN Effective meeting with

    The IGNORANT PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE, THOSE DISRUPTIVE ATTENDEES

    WHO THROUGH misinterpretation, THOSE WHO’S lack of understanding, etc.

    The IGNORANT PUBLIC, MAY Intentional disrespect these MRC directives.

     

    ———————————————————————————

    MCR’s 14 page power point presentation

    Page 13. Real life where might problems arise?

    Those,  DISRUPTIVE IGNORANT PUBLIC ATTENDEES?

    NO PROBLEM

    SHUT THEM UP? AND KICK THEM OUT?

    Page 14. for more info ON  OPMA CONTACT WA Office of the Attorney general

    ————————————————————————-

    (WDFW) created the Coastal MRC program.

    COASTAL MARINE RESOURCE COMMITTEE

     The Washington State Legislature endorsed and funded the MRC model in the 2007 and 2008 legislative sessions. As directed by RCW 36.125, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) created the Coastal MRC program. The program provides support for the development,

    administration, and coordination of the coastal MRCs and their projects.

    All of the coastal counties, CLALLAM AND JEFFERSON, GRAYS HARBOR, PACIFIC AND WAHKIAKUM, have created unique MRCs and currently implement community-based projects

    ———————————————-

    2013 Coastal MRC Summit

     The event is sponsored by the Coastal Marine Resource Committees representing Wahkiakum, Pacific, Grays Harbor, Jefferson and Clallam Counties.

    ————————————————————————————————————-